Discussion: How Many Aces In MLB?

A week ago I kicked off a discussion among MLBTR writers about how many true ace starting pitchers there are in baseball. I was surprised to find that my own off-the-cuff list totaled 18, with another eight falling into my "borderline" group. My list of aces, in no particular order:

Not a shot. Tim, you have too many aces. Yes the guys you listed are great pitchers. But Aces are guys who will end a 4 game loosing streak. Guys who when your bullpen is aching you know will go 7+. Aces are guys that will stop a hot team. In my humble opinion here are the 8 aces.

Halladay, Lee, CC, Felix, Lester, Lincecum, Wainwright, Josh Johnson with Weaver lurking in. I think the next one to take it to the next level is Kershaw. I really hate to not put Johan Santana in this list.

I agree with your notion that his list was entirely too large and i agree with your definition of what an ace should be. For me, its Halladay, Lee, CC, Verlander, Felix and Carpenter. (i know im going to catch some flack for carpenter, but if you have ever seen him pitch, he is a fighter. You just dont worry when he is out there.)

The next group – Young Aces or Aces in training. These are very fine pitchers, really the tops, but havent been around for 3-4 plus years of Ace-dom or to the point where i dont worry if the other team may match up good with him. They are Lincecum, Johnson, Wainwright, Grienke, Kershaw, and Weaver. Each of those seem like they need one more year of putting for evidence of ace-dom.

Then Price and Lester. Not sure where they fall in yet.

Then you have your Very good 2s and excellent 3’s – Haren, Hamels, Ubal (though he may move up) Cahill, and the rest.

Amazing that the first comment on this post was that Cole Hamels (former NLCS and World Series MVP) is no Ace…but not that Tommy Hanson (former top prospect who hasn’t done much of anything in the Majors) is no ace…

yeah a couple of these guys are low. Hanson? Cain? Great pitchers but they havent done things too impressive for too long. Hanson had one decent season, and he’s an ace? Hamels had like one good season…

Look at his numbers. He’s virtually the same pitcher as John Lester. Except for the win-loss record which frankly doesn’t mean a thing anymore. Very few would argue that Lester isn’t an ace, so why wouldn’t Hamels be one too?

Yeah, I don’t know how he’s borderline and David Price, Matt Cain, and Cole Hamels are aces.
Greinke sandwiched one of the best seasons of the past 10 years between 2 very solid seasons (~5 WAR both of those years).
Basically, Greinke’s last 3 seasons are arguably better than any of the above 3’s best seasons…

“Greinke = never done anything outside of one great 2009 season on a bottom-feeder team.”

except average better than 5 WAR per year in 2008 and 2010, something only about half of the names on tim’s list have been able to do. neither cain nor hamels have produced 5 WAR in one season, let alone averaged more than that over 2-3

Teams can definetely have more than one Ace.. just because a rotation is good a player who has done enough to be considered an elite pitcher shouldn’t lose it because he decided to join a team with Roy Halladay on it.

I think this is a good way of putting it. A bad staff definitely shouldn’t have an “ace” by default, they should have someone with dominating numbers but happen to be surrounded by mediocre lineups. (See: King Felix)

I’ve always looked at it this way. Every team as an “ACE” being their #1 starter. Such as Bronson Arroyo the Reds’ Ace in my mind.

However, I also believe the league only has a small number of “True Aces” which are the CC Sabathia, Roy Halladay etc. So yeah, in this sense, a team could have multiple “True Aces.” In the way I say True Aces, I mean that they could come in and be the #1 on just about any team.

I have to agree also with a couple posts up. Cole Hamels, while a great pitcher, is more of a #2 or #3 in a lot of teams…he could be the ACE of many other teams though. Zack Grienki I would have to say if he’s not a True Ace, he’s as close as you can get to being one without actually being one.

Who is an ace, Cliff Lee or Tim Stauffer? Cliff Lee clearly is inferior to at least one pitcher on his team, Halladay. Stauffer was an opening day starter and with Latos having issues this season, Stauffer is the best starting pitcher on the Padres. But, obviously, Lee is an ace, and Stauffer is a pleasant surprise who would be a fifth starter on the Phillies.

Yup, Just like Guthrie is the Baltimore Orioles Ace. I like this term because every team should have a pitcher they look to in order to stop a losing streak. Guthrie fits that perfectly but in the grand scheme of things, clearly isn’t an “ace”.

In a fair and just world.. there should only be one ace per staff but the world simply doesn’t work that way. Some teams have better farms/funds or both and are capable of putting together a team that clearly has more than one standout pitcher.

If we use actual definitions of words rather than coming up with our own random criteria for a word, there is absolutely only one ace per pitching staff (although the ace doesn’t have to be a starter…just the best pitcher).

So, yes, there are 30 aces, although people are free to debate which pitcher on which team is the ace.

I would rant on this further, but it’s pointless because people are morons and decide to make up their own rules and regulations regarding their interpretation of a word with a definition that leaves no room for interpretation.

Depends on your definition of showed up…scrappy means “having an aggressive and determined spirit,” which you could certainly say is a quality Eckstein possessed. So, yes, he showed up.

I don’t think Webster’s has caught on to dirtbag yet, but feel free to submit it. That would be a proper submission, as the goal would be to clarify and expand upon the definition, as opposed to confuse to the point that no one knows exactly what you mean when you use the word, as in the case of ace.

When we hear ace, we typically hear it in a context like “ace of the staff.” In that case, there’s only one such pitcher on a given staff and even bad rotations have one.

If we’re talking about an ace quality pitcher, ie, one who could be the best starter on the vast majority of teams regardless of how we shook up all the starting pitchers around the league, then there can be multiple per team and bad rotations don’t necessary have one (but might). It also implies a hard limit of 30 of them, but not necessarily that there IS 30 of them (if you’re an ace by default, you’re not really ace-quality). It doesn’t matter how those 30 shake out (five per team on six teams? one each on every team?) but logically I don’t think one can define ace as “can be the best pitcher on a team” and have more of those than there are teams.

In context of this article, I’d say we’re talking about ace quality pitchers.

I can see the arguments for Cain and Gallardo, but while they are both exceptionally good pitchers I’m not sure I go running off to acquire them to front my staff in some hypothetical fantasy draft. From my non-scientific observations, and without running out for stats, Gallardo tends to be really strong or really bad, and while he’s strong more than bad I have to call him borderline. Cain is exceptionally solid, but I’m not sure he brings that “oh hell yeah, we’re going to win this game” belief that aces tend to have no matter how hard the team is struggling. Kershaw has the potential to be an ace because of his dominating stuff, but his contributions to the staff in his career (with a tendency toward short starts) leaves him shy for me. Jimenez had an amazing season last year. If he repeats that kind of dominance I’d probably move him up, but at least right now he’s struggling.

Some of the others you have mentioned have the potential to be aces, but I’m not willing to give it to them yet because I don’t believe they have demonstrated the consistent level of success required of aces. I tend to be tough with things like that; I didn’t believe Carpenter was a Cy Young-caliber pitcher even after he won it because it came so far out of nowhere for me. Now, obviously, I do. So there’s definite potential with some of the young guys, but I’m not going to call them aces yet.

Wait, so you consider David Price and his one good year a more solid ace candidate than Jon Lester, who’s been one of the top two or three lefties (He’s had the second best xFIP and third best FIP and WAR of any lefty, right behind Lee and Sabathia, third best ERA too if you limit it to 150+IP in that period) in the MLB the last three years running? Almost as ridiculous as your inclusion of Guthrie and his career 4.68 FIP.

Lester is undoutably an ace and probably one of the ten best pitchers in the MLB overall right now.

That should have nothing to do with this discussion and Lester is off to a great start. Easily a top 10 pitcher and only CC can be argued as a better lefty? And you lose even more credibilty with the inclusion if Guthrie who is a 3-4 starter at best!

I’m not sure how Kershaw can make your list over Lester. Can you defend? Yes, he’s young and arguably more potential than Lester, but in terms of today’s skills, there’s not many that would consider him a better pitcher, or more than an ace. I would think that either both deserve to be on there at the very least. I don’t have Kershaw on my short list.

I took Tim’s description of who an ace is to not be specifically about stats, but to also include reputation and the team’s current situation. In that case, I don’t think of Lester as an ace, but more just as a top left handed pitcher in the game. That’s all. No disrespect to him. It’s just the reputation I think of behind his name. When I think Red Sox, I think of a combination of Beckett, Lester, and Lackey that head off a staff. Lester is the best of the 3, but I don’t look at him on his own as an ace, like I do Price at this point.

By that definition (Which is about the weakest rationale you could’ve given this side of “win percentage,” I would’ve called “I don’t like his face” a better rationale), you’d have to knock Halladay, Lee and Oswalt off of your list. I mean, sure, they’re among the top pitchers in the game, but they cancel each other out. Your rationale is terrible.

I like the number 15, but I can’t help takin out 4 of those 18, namely Chris Carpenter, Clayton Kershaw, Cole Hamels and Tommy Hanson. Your definition, for me, is like surefire HoF, which is more than ace. And I’d take away Sabathia away from this mix.

Surefire HOF is kind of a stretch. In each decade, there’s only 1 or 2 pitchers in the moment that you can identify as surefire HOF, and many times they are nearing the end of their career. I think at any given time there are 10 aces in the game, and those guys, should they continue to pitch at their current elevated level for 5-7 years, that makes them a HOFer. Alternatively, they can be very very good for 15 years.

Taking a recent example: Johan Santana in 2004-7 was an ace. There’s very few who would doubt that by 2007. He had just won two Cy Young awards, put up sub 1.000 WHIP, struck out almost 1,000 batters in 4 years and had won 70 games for the Twins. However, just 4 years later, he’s not even close to surefire HOF. If he puts up 10 more mediocre seasons, or if he becomes dominant again for 2 seasons, he might get there, but it’s not a sure thing.

That being said, Santana belongs on the ace list, although I have him on my Ace DL list.

How could you possibly not put Sabathia down as an ace, but include David Price?
Price has put together one ace season, but Sabathia has put one up every year for the last 5 years, with 2 of those 5 seasons being better than Price’s 1 ace season.

What is the Price hangup? The guy has had one great year, last year, yet he’s getting the nod by some over guys like Lester, Weaver and Verlander?

I know there’s a large market bias, but the small market bias is about twice as ludicrous and three times as hard to justify. All three of those guys have been consistently dominant and for a lot longer than Price and I’d bet dollars to donuts the only reason some of you guys are including him over the others is because he plays for the little guy, which makes no sense considering both people making this ignorant assertion are putting Sabathia in their lists.

Greinke literally has one exceptional season. 2 that are very good, but not in the discussion of “ace.”

Putting him in the borderline category even seems a bit silly right now. He’s an above average pitcher who had one incredibly good year. He hasn’t shown himself to be a dependable #1 or “ace” starter outside of that.

Between 2008-2010 Greinke was 4th in all of baseball in pitcher WAR. He put together 3 true All Star seasons, one of which was exceptional. How can you say that’s not ace worthy?
Heck, there were only about 10 pitchers total over the course of the last 3 years whose performance is even close…

Playing up Greinke’s WAR is to suggest he has no control over anything but walks, strikeouts, and home runs. He gave up a hit per inning in all but his Cy season. Can you convince me that that should not be accounted for at all when deciding an ace? FIP put him at 3.34 last year, and a proven better stat, SIERA, said 3.70.

not understanding that as counterargument to greinke as much as it is a tangent against FIP

if you use tRA, which like accounts for batted ball data like SIERA, greinke has still produced 19.9 WAR over the previous three seasons. his tRA was 3.7 last year, but the league average was 4.85. chris carpenter – an ace on your list – posted 4.08

sure, in 2009 carpenter’s was 2.59. but greinke’s was 2.28

again, not seeing an argument against greinke in the appeal to SIERA/tRA

How many of those “hits” were only scored hits because the excessively poor defense behind him couldn’t even get to the ball. The last several years including his Cy Young season he had an infield with gloves the likes of Callaspo at 2B, Betancourt at SS, Betemit at 3B and Billy Butler at 1B. A beer league softball team could get grounders through that infield.

And let us not forget the ever fleet footed Jose Guillen patrolling RF.

I pretty much agree with it. Besides I’d probably move Hamels and Hanson to the borderline. I just don’t think they’ve ever had to carry a team, but I think they will get there. Not sure about Haren being a true ace anymore. And Greinke probably moved up to the true ace list. Like you said though, if I really went and looked at the numbers I could be wrong on this, just a gut feeling.

I’d be interested to see your take on this, All-Star Game selection style. As in, one representative from every team. Because by many definitions, the “ace” is a team’s Opening Day starter – the guy you’d want to throw in a one-game playoff with the season on the line?

I wouldn’t define an “ace” as a team’s Opening Day starter because every team doesn’t have someone I would be comfortable putting out there on Opening Day. There are some players that aren’t shut down, “blow it by you” pitchers that I would be comfortable putting out there to give me 6-7 innings (ex: Buehrle, Lowe, Hudson) because I know they will manage a game from the mound.

sure let’s go by opening day starters. Liriano is a borderline ace right? well that makes sense because he was a number 2 starter this year, giving way to the true ace and opening day starter of the twin’s staff: carl pavano! you see how that argument falls apart?

That’s usually what my list looks like. The problem is there’s no real definition of ace so we all use a different one. I just remember the feeling in Boston whenever Pedro took the mound. There was this feeling among the fans, an acknowledgement that game was pretty much over. I really only get that feeling now from watching Hernandez and Halladay and to some extent Lincecum.

You’re right – you can use words however you wish. However, if you expect yourself to be taken seriously, you should probably use a given word’s agreed-upon meaning, which is handily recorded in a dictionary. But, hey, people are free to present themselves as morons as often as they please. Feel free to play Mad Libs with your resume.

Whats absolutely hilarious is that you keep puting people down for not using the correct ‘definition’ of the word ace. Meanwhile the true definition of the word ‘ace’ has nothing to do with baseball, it was a coined term that ended up spreading..

I know that Webster’s uses the example “b : the best pitcher on a baseball team (the ace of the staff),” but they are not an authority on baseball lingo they were simply using it as an example to give context to the word. If you do the proper thing and look at the definition of Ace as an adjective (since we’re looking at the quality of a pitcher we are using Ace as a descriptive word, hence adjective) they define it as “of first or high rank or quality (an ace mechanic),” or in other words the top tier or best of the best.

It’s a headline, not a proper sentence. The word pitchers is implied: “How Many Ace Pitchers in MLB?” would be a proper sentence. An ace is not a different thing than a pitcher, the word ace describes the type of pitcher they are. So again, it’s an adjective.

Right, “How Many Ace Pitchers are there in MLB?” Better? The point (which you conveniently ignored) remains the same, “Ace” is not what they are; pitcher is what they are, and ace is the type of pitcher they are.

your prescriptivist theory of and approach to language is older than most of the words in the dictionaries you worship. prescriptivism failed and failed hard a long time ago and nothing’s changed since

the uses (and thus the meanings) of words change over time, despite blowhards blowing hard about how “moronic” it is to stray from standard usage. you’re lucky the publishers of various dictionaries do not share your view, otherwise those books would be worthless except to museums

the resume analogy is just goofy. in that context, one is attempting to gain favor with an audience by playing by rules one assumes that audience endorses. it’s got bunk to do with a casual conversation about baseball, for example — even when one of the participants in it fancies himself an internet scholar

and even if it were a good analogy, as someone who’s done quite a bit of hiring i can assure you that an applicant’s diction is one of the last things considered precisely because of its triviality. someone with an understanding of the flexible nature of something as fluid as language — who can then adapt his behavior in stride with it — is infinitely better suited to perform just about any task than the uncreative thumper of a rule-book he didn’t write and can barely understand well enough to discern its usefulness from one context to another

i’m not telling you how to write. i’m telling you to waste less time trying to tell others how to write. it’s useless and it’s boring

I’m all for evolution of the language, but this isn’t proper evolution. When hundreds of people start using the same word differently, that’s not progress or evolution.

It’s confusion, and that’s not good for language because the word essentially becomes meaningless…which, if you read this discussion, the evidence certainly supports an argument that the term ace has lost its meaning amongst you linguistic barbarians.

this is not a coherent concept and is probably the source of your troubles here. you don’t get to decide what the proper evolution of a word’s meaning is, because you aren’t the king of english (YET??)

the intersubjective consensus between a language’s users determines the meanings of its words. dictionaries record these determinations, but you are getting the cart before the horse in thinking that they are authoritative

I’m not trying to decide anything. I’m trying to use terms properly according to how the consensus has determined in order to provide clarity in my statements. The easiest way to accomplish this task is by using the terms as they’ve been recorded, if you live in a society that actually values such things. I think that may be the root of the problem.

As for the second part, perhaps…am I just wrong for believing people should actually try to use words in the same fashion in which the consensus has already decided upon, when deviating from that path offers little benefit?? Am I wrong to use the word in the manner that provides the least confusion??

I’m sure you can at least agree that countless different definitions of the same word, no matter how close or far apart some may be to each other, provides much greater confusion than adhering to the previously-agreed-upon term.

In short, I’m technically right (and a tool, in this particular case), but no one else really cares enough for my correctness to remotely affect their belief.

“I’m trying to use terms properly according to how the consensus has determined”

lose the word “properly”. you simply ARE using terms according to their standard definitions as listed in a dictionary. we know. you’re also trying to insist to other people that it’s moronic to do anything else. and that’s where you begin to be very wrong

i am all for clarity. i think if people are knowingly using non-standard definitions of words, they should say so. that makes sense. but insisting that standard usage is “correct” or “proper” is a mistake. standard use is just — ready? — standard

i sympathize with your motivation, but you’re going about it the wrong way. you are “correct” that failing to define terms is sloppy and problematic. you are not at all correct that there is such a thing as a “correct” or “proper” definition of a word

Why is Danks borderline, era over 3.7 past two years, especially Liriano after his start to the year. also why are people hating on hamels, he had one bad year in 09, but eras under 3.1 in 08 and 2010, including a world series mvp.

there’s a huge difference between the top of this list and the bottom, but where should we draw in an ace-level line? i have a hard time thinking of a starter who produces 5+ WAR per year for three years as less than an ace, so i might suggest 15+ WAR over 3 seasons as the threshold. but there could be reason to pick a different one

here are three guys from 07-09 who had down years in 2010

17.5 (668.0)
16.9 (587.1)
16.5 (644.1)

should they count? there’s also the issue of guys who have only been great for two years now, but have been really great for those two years

I meant the fact that you go through all this work and provide data in a meaningful well written post yet no one replied or liked it.. meanwhile writing hamels is not an ace with no backup or anything gets 25 likes

The term “Ace” is so subjective. All the pitchers you listed are excellent, and capable of shutting down good lineups on any given day. To me, though, the genuine “Ace” does it on a regular basis, dependably–to the point where you’re surprised when they are less than dominant.

Based on my own fuzzy definition of Ace, I’d move 5 from your Ace list into the “Borderline” group:
-Hamels – hasn’t dominated regular seasons
-Haren – shaky last year, and in 2nd half throughout career
-Kershaw – has he put together a complete, great season yet? Not saying he can’t, he just hasn’t yet.
-Cain – not a knock, but he just strikes me as prototype for a workhorse #2–last year’s postseason notwithstanding
-Hanson – hasn’t earned the title yet, though I expect he will in the next year or two

I have to echo your disclaimer, though–this is based on my gut, and on various stats I may or may not be remembering precisely. I will say, though, that there seem to be more Aces, Borderline Aces, and Likely Future Aces around now than there has been in a good 25 years. In fact, I just though of 3 more who at least deserve mention:

-Josh Beckett – If he’s really back this year, then he would definitely qualify
-Tim Hudson – Maybe more of a workhorse #2 like Cain, but he’s been doing it so regularly for so long, he deserves mention
-Johan Santana – Out with TJ surgery, but it wasn’t that long ago when he was the best pitcher in baseball.

Wow, I thought it was just stats that I would misremember….do I at least get partial credit for remembering that Santana had some kinda really bad surgery?

Anyway, I’m thinking Wainwright can’t really claim Ace status anymore either since he’s presumably out for the year, and chances are he won’t be back to his old self until 2013 at the earliest. I overlooked that on my first pass.

I agree with your second part…everyone can have their own standard as to what makes a pitcher the best on his/her team. Some may say Halladay’s the ace for the Phillies, while others could say Lee, Oswalt, or Hamel. There’s room for interpretation in figuring out who exactly the ace is. However, as the definition clearly states, an ace is simply any team’s best pitcher.

The real problem is the word best. It’s superlative, singular, exclusionary, and subjective in nature. There can’t be two bests. If the definition didn’t use the word best, sure, the Phillies could have 3 or 4 aces. Likewise, the Royals or Pirates could have none.

Ace in baseball terms is SLANG, there for SLANG may not have a black and white definition because it doesn’t have an origin. Why do you believe that websters dictionary is the most authoratative voice for sports jargin?

Oxford dictionary is far superior to Websters. . and they have this

‘informal a person who excels at a particular sport or other activity’

which is where the term ‘ace’ in baseball comes from. Its not the opening day starter, or the best starter on staff, its someone who excels at pitching.

Here’s the problem, in this case. You are looking at an informal definition of the word, meaning it is slang. Good for slang, I love it…incredibly useful in most cases.

However, if the word does have a concrete, formal definition pertaining to the specific context in which it is being used, i.e. baseball, that is the better definition. As long as the source is reputable, and both are in this case, use the better definition.

In the end, the goal is clarity. How many, “He’s an ace!!,” No, he’s not!!” discussions have there been in this thread alone simply because people have chosen to manufacture their own definition of the word?? This is precisely the situation in which actually looking a word up is beneficial for all involved…and yet everyone would rather drop the ball.

“In the end, the goal is clarity. How many, “He’s an ace!!,” No, he’s not!!” discussions have there been in this thread alone simply because people have chosen to manufacture their own definition of the word?? This is precisely the situation in which actually looking a word up is beneficial for all involved…and yet everyone would rather drop the ball.
”

you are observing a problem created by [people not defining their terms] and calling it a problem with [people not using a dictionary definition of a term]

they aren’t the same thing. the solution to the clarity problem need not be “refer to a dictionary” (see what other people once meant by that word) but instead “say what you mean by that word”

Using that definition, though, there would have to be 30 “Aces”–one on each team. And using that definition, this whole topic becomes incredibly boring, unless you want to pore over the Royals’ staff to figure out who’s the best, or least crappy.

But I think most everyone would agree that there are at least a dozen teams without an Ace; and that, at the very least, Philly has two in Doc & Lee. Or just go back a dozen years to those Atlanta staffs–most would agree that Maddux was their #1, but Glavine was also an Ace, and Smoltz was usually their best starter in the postseason and surely qualified as an Ace as well.

Johan Santana should be added to the ace category
Francisco Liriano should be dropped from the borderline category
If Romero and Danks are in the borderline, I’d put Chad Billingsley there too.
If Cahill and Anderson are in the borderline, Gio Gonzalez should definitely be added.
I’d put Josh Beckett in the borderline category, although I accept it’s debatable.

This all revolves around what we want to define as “ace”. It seems like the definition being used here is a reliable, sub 3.50era, #1-2 starter. If we want to narrow it down to guys you want out there if you need to win a game, the list will be shrunk to: CC Sabathia, Felix Hernandez, Roy Halladay, Josh Johnson, Adam Wainwright, and Tim Lincecum. I think if you ask people who they want out there, 80-90% of people will say one of these 6 guys. The other 10-20% will be around: Jered Weaver, Jon Lester, Cliff Lee, Justin Verlander, David Price, Johan Santana, Clayton Kershaw. Everyone else is a notch below.

Using the gut feel for a what is an Ace, the Ace really has to be a stopper. He has to be the guy that when your team goes against him, you pencil in a loss, and when he pitches for your team, you pencil in a win. He’s the guy that when he catches a loss, you’re kind of amazed. When the team loses with him starting, it almost always the bullpen or the offenses fault, not his. He’s “on” almost every time, and only loses tough luck losses or when he’s up against a better ace. To use a terrible stat: every start is a Quality Start or (significantly) better.

Many of these guys don’t really fit that category. Informally, I usually only imagine there to be about 10 Aces in the game at any time. 10 seems like the right number, and it’s a very arbitrary cut off. Looking at no stats, I would say these guys make it:

I originally had Haren on my list, but had to remove him to get to 10. It’s an arbitrary cut off; but of all these guys, Haren impresses the least. It’s also worth noting that Haren has been an every day starter for 6 years and has only once been in the top 5 in Cy Young voting. The award itself isn’t a great barometer, but it does tell you something about his peers. All of the others either have a Cy Young award, have finished in the top 5 a few times, or have significantly less service time (David Price, Josh Johnson, Jared Weaver)

Although he technically does not belong on the list, I nominate Mark Buehrle for 2 reasons

1) One of two active pitchers with multiple no hitters

2) Every pitcher in the MLB should take a lesson in how to work quickly form Mark. Went to his game at Yankee Stadium last week, 2 hours and 11 minutes. Not those 4 hour marathons like the Red Sox. It was fun, enjoyable and no long boring delays. The way the game is meant to be played!!

Those are certainly admirable accomplishments/traits, but c’mon…at some point, the pitcher needs to demonstrate some level of (sustained) dominant performance, and Mark Buerhle is not that type of pitcher.

I’m not hating on the guy; he’s still a quality pitcher and quality person, but…sustained performance at an elite level has to be the first thing we consider here.

Thats IT for aces, every other pitcher who is “close” falls into one of three categories:

Has Potential to become an ace: CJ Wilson, Jiminez or Dan Haren would be good examples of this.

Has a one or two really good years, but not a true ace (either he used to be or he never will be in my opinion): Tim Hudson and Johan Santana would fit the “used to be”…. Mark Buerhle would fit the “he’s good but will never be a true “ace””.

Too young right now (and in some cases also injured), but shows great promise: Brian Matusz, Brett Anderson, Stephen Strasburg

There are a lot of young pitchers who have ace stuff/potential, but for one of the three reasons above I cannot consider them a true ace. Many of them (Price, Kershaw, Anderson) just haven’t been around long enough to show sustained dominance, or have only flashed dominance here and there (Haren, Hamels).

I ranked the aces based on my preference of who I would give the ball to in a ‘must-win’ situation. I did not rank the near aces.

first, it is nice to see someone else not giving 30 guys the Ace label (although i gave more than you).

Second, i have to point out that two of the 7 “aces” in your list violate one of your criteria. Jiminez doesn’t have sustainability in my opinion. he’s got one good year and a couple of solid years, but his struggles early this year make me wonder if he’ll ever be a true “ace” year in and year out…. Also, wainwright is out for a year with Tommy John surgery. So if Beckett doesn’t make it for blisters (although i don’t think he’s a true ace either way) you can’t give a guy who’s on the shelf for tommy john durable.

I do agree more with your list though than pretty much anyone elses.

I think there have to be closer to 10 true aces than 20. either they’re too young, too injury prone, or not good enough.

As for Ubaldo, I initially thought the same as you, that it was 2010 + a couple of above-average seasons. However, if you really dig into his 2008 & 2009 seasons, he’s really been an ace in the making for 3 years – his K/9 has been above 8 each year, he’s thrown nearly 200+ IP in each year (ok, ok, he was at 198 for 2008), and his FIP values have been impressive. I suppose the argument could be made that only 2009 & 2010 were really ‘dominant’ which slips him into the ace stuff/potential category, and I wouldn’t have a big problem with that. His 2011 is starting to worry me, though….but it’s only one month in!

i think it’s funny when people get all authoritative about their opinions without having provided any guidelines whatsoever

tim acknowledged his list was based on gut impression and not data, which is cool and can be fun. unlike you and most people in this thread, he didn’t conclude his post with NOBODY ELSE DESERVES CONSIDERATION. I HAVE SPOKEN

I think people use the term ace too loosely. To me an ace is a pitcher that if he is on you have no chance to win, if he is average you’ll have a hard time hitting him, and on a rare bad day he still only gives up a few earned. The only pitchers that fit my criteria for best of the best are:
CC
Lincecum
Halladay
Josh Johnson
King Felix

These 5 are my aces. A lot of the others mentioned are #1 starters, not aces. There is a difference between the two. I also would list wainwright before the injury, and could easily add Lee. Ubaldo’s start to this season eliminates him as an ace. Price, Lester, and Cahill could soon be on my humble list.

Personally, and not only because I’m a Boston fan (although that helps), I’d take CC off that list. Last year and this year he’s seemed pretty hittable, and while he stays in there and gives you a good game every game, he also doesn’t seem to be dominant as often lately. Lee probably goes up there before CC for me.

The only time I’m afraid of CC is when Christmas Crunch season rolls around. Bluntly speaking, the guy has a lot more money than me and that stuff is hard enough to find in the northeast as is without a guy making $20MM+ who likes Captain Crunch even more than me in the general region.

Great pitcher, but yeah, he’s not a guy I’m generally terrified of. If you can get his pitch count up, he tends to make mistakes around the sixth or seventh inning. A guy like Lee who isn’t going to give you free pitches is a lot scarier to me. I mean, if we’ve got Wakefield on the mound, we’re screwed, but if our pitcher can contain the Yanks to a few runs, he’s beatable.

Of course, that’s a big if you’ve got there at the end. And thus why CC -looks- scarier I think, that he’s always got some major run support. On a team scrapping for every run, I’m thinking the Giants or something, his general lack of intimidation and domination would make his non-aceness a bit clearer.

Yeah, an individual’s definition of an “ace” will color the final construction of a list. Yes, every team has their ace, but that ace might not be all that spectacular. And some teams, such as this year’s Phillies, have more than one.

I’m removing Hamels, Haren, Cain, Hanson, Kershaw and Carpenter, for a variety of reasons, from not enough track record, or consistent health issues, to where they pitch. (I give guys like Lester and Price extra credit for the league/division, pushing them ahead of a Kershaw.) I’m adding in Santana. It’s tricky because Johan is not quite the pitcher he was at his peak, and now he’s injured, but I won’t write him off until I see he’s not longer the pitcher he was prior to the surgery, and that man was still producing 130+ ERA+ season using one quick, down-and-dirty stat. Santana is an ace, even if he’s not in that highly durable, workhorse category of a CC Sabathia. I have to remove Carpenter becuase of consistent health issues throughout his career, and now his age and the belief he’s not quite the pitcher he once was. I know some people have removed Oswalt, but he has been consistently very good, and he’s still good. We’re talking about a guy who may end up in the HOF if he keeps going.

How can you say hamels isn’t? besides from the blip in 2009, hamels has been downright disgusting. he was our ace in 2008 with a ~3 ERA, had that blip in 2009, ~3 ERA 2010, which might I add, he had the best ERA of any left hander after the all star break if I’m not mistaken. I mean I can understand putting him at borderline but hamels stuff and his new approach to the game is just ridiculous.

I don’t think it has to do with the Mets. I think people honestly think he doesn’t deserve to be on the list. I’ve seen it said multiple times before this post. I would disagree. I think it has to do with the contract that he signed and the extremely high standards that come with it. He definitely isn’t as dominant as he was with the Twins but he’s still a top level pitcher. He’s still an ace.

I would gladly take 600 IP, 40 W’s, 2.85 ERA and 496 K’s in three years from a pitcher. Gladly. He’s been unlucky too as the Mets behind him (defense and bullpen) have blown a lot of games for him. I just would never want the Twins to pay that contract. He might have been better off with the Twins though, because the Mets seem to run pitchers into the ground more and I hear bad things about their medical staff (Twins medical staff sucks too). The only good thing that happened to him due to changing teams was that the amount of money in his wallet increased greatly.

I see a lot of people mention things like past performances and accolades when trying to define what an “ace” actually is, when in all reality, that should have no standing in regards to what a player does in the here and now, and what makes them an “ace,” here and now.

With that in mind, right now, Cole Hamels is easily one of the game’s best left handed starters and should be considered an ace.

That wasn’t what I was saying, in regards to both comments. When you look over some of the comments, people are going back way too far in regards to pitchers like Roy Oswalt, etc. In regards to Cole Hamels, right now, he is one of the best pitchers in baseball.

Peopl who don’t agree will bring up past struggles to argue that fact. In reality, right now, Cole Hamels is as good a starter as there is in baseball. That makes him an ace in my book.

On a serious note, is Cole Hamels not one of the best left handed starters in the game right now? Looking at his numbers, I’d happily take my chances with Hamels on the mound against any team in baseball, and I think that’s what makes a pitcher an ace. I’m not overvaluing him at all. I just know that watching him pitch this season, he is an ace.

I just find it hard to believe that so many people believe that someone like Tommy Hanson or Ricky Romero is a more credible ace than Santana …

He has pitched less that 199 inning once in his tenure with the Mets. Finishing the season hurt most times, I understand that … but when the Mets are already out of contention year after year, and some of them were injuries that he would’ve played through had they been in the hunt, of course he’s going to get shut down …

And you don’t need to eliminate the team from the equation … he played with basically a AAA team behind him in 2009, and an incomplete team behind him last year as well …

It’s a shame that his decision to come to NY hasn’t been as fairytale-esque as he (and many of us Mets fans) have hoped, but for anyone to discredit his status as an ace just doesn’t seem right in my eyes … his poise, reputation, demeanor, fielding abilities, and accomplishments make him an ace …

Of course, an unsuccessful return from surgery can completely discredit my theory … but the same can be said about Wainwright, and no one else seems to be sharing that ideology …

Carried on his back would imply that he’d gotten anywhere. I have a friend who weighs about 350 lbs. I myself weigh about 160. I tried carrying him on my back once. I hurt my ankle and haven’t been able to throw more than 100 innings a year since.

You know what, I take back my criticism. Yours was a perfectly valid metaphor, unfortunately it exhibits exactly why Santana is no longer considered an ace.

There are some serious problems with this list.
1 – Cole Hamels is NOT an ace. He’s an above average lefty, but not even close.
2 – Matt Cain is NOT an ace. Not even close. He’s been consistently overrated over the past few years.
3 – Tommy Hanson is NOT an ace YET. Give him another season or two, right now I wouldn’t put him in that category.
4 – If we’re going on current performance, Chris Carpenter is not an ace.
5 – If we’re going on current performance, Brett Anderson is totally an ace. Seriously, look up the kids stats, their insane.
6 – I would drop Liriano from the borderline group. He’s never been consistently dominant, and this year he’s sucking it up.
7 – Johan Santana should be in the borderline group. Depending on his performance later in the season, he could fall off the list completely, but right now he’s still there for sure.
8 – Billingsley is borderline if Danks is.

On the other hand, I like the inclusion of Romero, the exclusion of Jiminez from the ACE category, and the exclusion of Buchholz (God is he overrated).

Look what Waino has done since 2006. I know he’s hurt now but that in my opinion that shouldn’t keep him from being considered as an ace. If his injury keeps him out more than this year then take him off

These are guys that would have been on this list had some type of injury/bad season along the way happened to them:

Johan Santana (when healthy dominant ace)
Jake Peavey (see Santana)
Edison Volquez (TJ Surgery hurts some longer than others)
Josh Beckett (like it or not he was a top of rotation threat)
Matt Latos (if he can keep his head out of his butt)
Brandon Webb
Dan Haren (come back kid?)
Chien-Ming Wang (it wasn’t all offense support)
Barry Zito (someone had to bring it up)
Chris Young (if he stays in the saftey of the CITI he could put one more gem of a season together)
Dontrelle Willis (dunno what happened)
Jeremy Bonderman (the ace before Verlander)
Ben Sheets (if he could only stay healthy for 20 games maybe he’d win them)
Cole Hamels (definitely has performed like an ace since the World Series MVP)

this is the sort of conversation that really polarizes the sabermetric crowd and the tradionalist crowd. Some people think of an Ace as a guy you can turn to, a guy to pick up a starting staff, someone who can stop losing skids and starting winning ways, someone whose been in all sort of situations and exceeded in them, though might not put jaw dropping K:BB numbers or WAR because they transcend that. Some people are strictly saber-sticklers. It really is a question with no right answer.

Those are ACES, the cream of the crop. Kershaw, Lester, Price, Latos, Cain, Oswalt, Santana, Beckett, ect.. Guys like that are either former ACES or guys who are just on the cusp. Lester, Price, and Kershaw could be true aces by the end of the AS break.

In my opinion, the term “ace” doesn’t exactly fit here. When I think of “ace” I think of the best starting pitcher in your staff. An ace is the best card you can play so your best pitcher is your ace. When I think of what this post is about I’d go with the term “elite” rather than “ace”.

Would Don Sutton have been considered an “Ace”? What about Fernando or Hershiser? The post that talked about the future HOF’er definition for ace made me think of my team, famous for guys flaming out after a good 3-5 years of dominance due to overwork/injury so they lacked longevity. Sutton is the opposite, never owning the league or gaudy k/rates but having super longevity.

To me an ace is a guy who you can rely on to pitch a gem when needed, give your bullpen a break, stop a losing streak, etc. To do that, at least for me, you have to be able to stay on the field. A guy like Johan, who has been regressing recently and is now starting to look like an injury risk, doesn’t make it. A guy like Wainwright does because he’s younger and could potentially be better after this surgery.

I like Tim’s list, but I’d leave off Hamels for reasons stated above. I’d also leave off Hanson and Price due to them only being up for 2 seasons. I’d also leave off Cain because he seems to be a little lucky every year. Besides that it’s fine.

My fantasy team in a 10-team mixed league has four of the listed aces: Roy Halladay, Tim Lincecum, Dan Haren and Tommy Hanson (with Jeremy Hellickson, Zach Britton and Kyle McClellan fighting for the fifth rotation slot each week).

You can’t have Liriano and then post an article a couple hours later where he should be pulled from the rotation.
I do not know why Buchholz has not been mentioned as a boderline. He is not an ace yet but certainly could be.
Latos is better than Danks, Liriano and Gallardo. (Marcum and Buchholz also for that matter)
If you are going to include injured players then Hughes and Peavy need to be considered as borderline (although I think Peavy will never be the same)
C.J. Wilson should not be on the list, but I would take him over Danks and Liriano.

I disagree with almost every pick on here. A legitimate ace, follows the law of 2’s. A consistant ERA in the 2’s with an occassional low 3, 200 IP 200 k’s and at least a 3-1 K/BB ratio.

In my opinion, Lincecum and Halladay are the only true aces in baseball right now. Guys who, if on the right team you can hand the ball every 5th day, guarantee a quality start or better, have potential to go all 9 often, and absolutely dominate hitters.

Borderline guys who are very close include Jon Lester, CC Sabathia, Josh Johnson, and Cliff Lee

But calling guys like Liriano who were almost DFA’d 2 years ago borderline seams silly to me regardless of recent success. Price doesn’t have enough innings under his belt to be considered, nor the ERA shy of 1 year.

Weaver and Hernandez must at least make your borderline list.
My definition of an ace is a guy I check to see if he is going to face my favorite team a week in advance. A second definition is a pitcher I feel is going win no matter who is the competition. That definition would bring Verlander into the conversation and move Lester, Johnson and Sabathia into ace status.
However I like your list better than the original. Liriano and Danks? please spare me.

i cant agree with the list… Cole hamels , Matt Cain, David Price and Tommy Hanson? If u have these guys and not Johan Santana your crazy… If their on there then why not cj wilson or steven strasburg… Every team may have an ace meaning thier number 1 pitcher but there are only about 10-12 true aces in the league.. Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Adam Wainwright, Tim Lincecum, Felix Hernandez, Dan Haren, Josh Johnson, Chris Carpenter, Johan Santana, Jon Lester and CC Sabathia…

Two “aces” have been omitted and they are both on one team. If they were split and separate teams, any other team and they would both be ace caliber pitchers for that team and they are from the Braves rotation. They are Tim Hudson and Jair Jurrijens.

My definition of ‘Ace’ is: If all teams disbanded and chose from a list of current pitchers (Based only on ‘talent’, and disregarding Salary, Age, etc), these would be the First pitchers taken. There could be several from one team, and other teams might not be represented at all.

It’s still entirely subjective, and one person’s definition of ‘Ace’ might not match another, but it’s a completely arbitrary title anyway. Fun to talk about, but hardly something you can really ‘define’ any further than that.

When will you realize that you can’t compare pitchers apples to apples? The only reason people seem to leave Lester off is because his numbers don’t quite hold up to some of the other “aces”.

Ever think to adjust for 1) the AL East, including the Yankees and their tremendous lineup 2) the AL in general, especially due to the DH 3) Fenway Park? People drool over Adam Wainwright and yet ignore how many outside factors benefit him (especially his home ballpark…ever look at his home/away splits?)…I’m not knocking Wainwright, as he’d be an excellent pitcher anywhere, but to many people he would clearly be regarded as better than Lester due to his superior numbers, and I find that to be poorly thought out.

Lester has pretty much everything you want in an ace. He’s a horse (almost all aces are), he has tremendous stuff (close to 10 K/IP each of the past two years), solid command, can win without his best stuff, and he has absolute ice in his veins.

Short of Roy Halladay, I don’t think there’s another SP in baseball who is clearly better than Lester. He’s basically Cliff Lee with better stuff and less command.

To wit: everyone has Tim Lincecum as a surefire, no doubt ace (which he is), and yet plenty are happy to call Lester a “potential ace”. Think about all the advantages Lincecum has…that nice pitcher’s ballpark in SF, no DH, the often mediocre/bad lineups of the NL West. We can never be sure how much Lincecum benefits, and how much Lester is handicapped, but we can ABSOLUTELY SURE that it’s silly to just plop their numbers next to each other and compare.

Case in point…in 11 career interleague starts (home or away), Lincecum has a 3.99 ERA, 1.40 WHIP, and 81 K’s in 70 innings. His stuff is still there, but as a max effort pitcher, Lincecum can be worn down and/or issue more walks to DHs and deeper lineups.

Meanwhile, in Lester’s 13 career interleague starts, he has a 2.66 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, and 77 K’s in 81 innings. As a pitcher who gets a lot of K’s with subtle movement and (due to the nature of the AL East) who tries to be efficient, he doesn’t see a huge boost in K’s or WHIP, but it’s easier for him to keep his ERA down than in his AL situation.

Again, I’m not knocking Lincecum, and we always have to be wary of the small sample size alert…but it doesn’t take much digging to realize the Lester puts up near ace numbers with virtually every outside factor against him. Personally (and this is just my opinion, not trying to start a debate), given his success in even the toughest setups and situations, I’d pick Lester over Lincecum to start Game 1 for me, without a second thought.

I went and looked at Garica’s numbers ready to make an argument. And I seen that you are 100% right. LOL I guess I forgot how much he fell off the end of last season. So he can stay on the “Not even close” list.

Buchholz hasn’t shown the consistency to be considered, and there are also major doubts about whether he can replicate what he did last year. He had an Ace like ERA but his FIP and xFIP were more “really good” than Ace, and he doesn’t strike many people out.

Excellent point. I’m an AL East guy, so I had no idea the numbers Hanson has been putting up. Price has a slightly higher profile overall, having been an All Star and coming in second for the Cy Young last year. Also, he pitched in the World Series (which I recognize is luck of being on a good team). All of this is why he makes my list (arbitrarily of course).

I agree that Buchholz needs to have more than one dominant seasonto be considered an ace or even borderline yet pitchers with similar numbers and time like Hanson, Price and Kershaw are not being held to that same standard. IMO, none of them should be on this list unless they have put up consecutive dominant seasons otherwise Clay deserves the same recognition!

The only difference is that those other guy need a longer history of success, Buchholz’s numbers don’t appear to be sustainable, so there are questions about whether or not that was the “real” Buchholz last year. But yes, if he does continue with his success he belongs right along with those other guys.

If Tommy Hanson is an ace, than Cole Hamels has to be by default. If for no other reason than that he was the ace and MVP of a team that won the World Series just three years ago and had the best season of his career last year.

Hanson has 61 career regular season starts and 1 postseason start in which he got lit up (4 IP, 4 ER). Hamels has 154 career regular season starts and 12 postseason starts in which he is 6-4 with a 3.45 ERA including NLCS and WS MVP awards.

In light of this comparison, you’re right – Hanson has better numbers (Pitcher #2) than Price. He dominates more (K’s, K/BB) has a roughly equivalent ERA and slightly fewer innings. Price really had a breakout year last year, so he immediately comes to mind. Of course Hanson is not putting up big win totals, but we can safely ignore that. I think neither guy really deserves the title, but both belong in the “Young Elite Ace” list, which would also include Kershaw and a few others. The characteristic of that list would be something like: “on a clear trajectory to be an ace, already has ace stuff, but not the resume.” I would expect 70-80% of the guys on that list would morph into legitimate aces.

By the way, I love debates like this because there’s no way you can be wrong, it’s completely subjective.